PURPOSE: A previous study of cases published approximately 10-30 years ago reveals that substantial improvement in the quality of adverse drug reaction (ADR) case reports is needed. Since that evaluation, recommendations are available concerning the content and formatting of case reports. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of recently published ADR case reports to a previously published study of the quality of ADR case reports from 10-30 years ago. A secondary objective is to determine the quality of reporting by specialty journal. METHODS: This was a two-phase study. Phase 1 included an assessment of the 23 patient, drug and ADR variables evaluated in the previous study to allow comparison with recently published case reports in specialty journals. Phase 2 mimicked the methods of Phase 1 with a random selection of available case reports in a 1-year period from a variety of journals. RESULTS: For Phase 1, 19 of the 23 variables had significant differences in reporting compared with the previous study. Reporting of active diseases, social history, weight, race, other drugs and dose had frequencies ranging from 25 to 80%, which was an improvement, but affording an opportunity for greater improvement. For Phase 2, 21 of the 23 variables had significant differences compared with the previous evaluation; however illicit drug use, mechanism for ADR and route of administration had significant reductions in reporting. CONCLUSION: Progress has been made in ADR case reporting quality for a variety of journals, but more improvement is required to ensure data are understandable and relatable to patient care.
PURPOSE: A previous study of cases published approximately 10-30 years ago reveals that substantial improvement in the quality of adverse drug reaction (ADR) case reports is needed. Since that evaluation, recommendations are available concerning the content and formatting of case reports. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of recently published ADR case reports to a previously published study of the quality of ADR case reports from 10-30 years ago. A secondary objective is to determine the quality of reporting by specialty journal. METHODS: This was a two-phase study. Phase 1 included an assessment of the 23 patient, drug and ADR variables evaluated in the previous study to allow comparison with recently published case reports in specialty journals. Phase 2 mimicked the methods of Phase 1 with a random selection of available case reports in a 1-year period from a variety of journals. RESULTS: For Phase 1, 19 of the 23 variables had significant differences in reporting compared with the previous study. Reporting of active diseases, social history, weight, race, other drugs and dose had frequencies ranging from 25 to 80%, which was an improvement, but affording an opportunity for greater improvement. For Phase 2, 21 of the 23 variables had significant differences compared with the previous evaluation; however illicit drug use, mechanism for ADR and route of administration had significant reductions in reporting. CONCLUSION: Progress has been made in ADR case reporting quality for a variety of journals, but more improvement is required to ensure data are understandable and relatable to patient care.
Entities:
Keywords:
adverse event; case report; case report guidelines; drug-related side effects and adverse reactions; quality; reports
Authors: William N Kelly; Felix M Arellano; Joanne Barnes; Ulf Bergman; Ralph I Edwards; Alina M Fernandez; Stephen B Freedman; David I Goldsmith; Kui A Huang; Judith K Jones; Rachel McLeay; Nicholas Moore; Rosie H Stather; Thierry Trenque; William G Troutman; Eugene van Puijenbroek; Frank Williams; Robert P Wise Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2007 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: C A Naranjo; U Busto; E M Sellers; P Sandor; I Ruiz; E A Roberts; E Janecek; C Domecq; D J Greenblatt Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1981-08 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Joel J Gagnier; Gunver Kienle; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Harold Sox; David Riley Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Sheena N Ramasamy; Cameron S Korb-Wells; Diluk R W Kannangara; Myles W H Smith; Nan Wang; Darren M Roberts; Garry G Graham; Kenneth M Williams; Richard O Day Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.228
Authors: Widya N Insani; Alexandra C Pacurariu; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Liana Gross-Martirosyan Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 2.890